Talk:Trillion dollar club (macroeconomics)

Re order

I took note of Vedant's arrangement by alphabetical order. However, the list is in chronological order and after I checked the IMF source I noticed that the way it was arranged before appeared to be based on which country reached a trillion dollar economy first. Can someone else check this too? Nirvana888 (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that there was no reply, I've gone ahead and took a closer look at the IMF figures and alas they were arranged based on when they reached 1 trillion in the year measured by Q. Nirvana888 (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel such but I didn't reply as I assumed the dispute was resolved. I have copied the cite from the IMF here and I see no mention of chronological order. Instead it looks like the list is arranged alphabetically which is why Australia is at the top and the United Kingdom is at the bottom. I also see that the list is missing the United States but anyways, by your argument Australia would have reached trillion dollar status before China, the United Kingdom, Germany, and practically the rest of the world which is simply not so. I challenge you to find a citation which proves chronological order. Vedant (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as an addendum, Notice how the GDP of Germany (possibly not an amalgamated figure and just West Germany) in 1987 was $1.136 trillion and the GDP of the UK was $1.017 trillion in 1990 but Germany is ranked 6th on the list (if it is chronological order by your argument) and the UK would be ranked last. Also take note of Australia's GDP which was $210 billion in 1987 and $317 billion in 1990 both far below the UK and Germany yet Australia is ranked first because... well A comes in the alphabet before G or U.Vedant (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning is somewhat incoherent and seriously flawed. As you can see, whoever started this article decided to add a chronological list not an alphabetical list. The IMF list is alphabetical because the countries selected are automatically sorted that way and is not a result of numerical ranking. Thus, I really don't see the merit of your point. What is actually of significance are the values of the individual countries and exactly what year they reached 1 trillion dollar in GDP. I've taken the additional task of inferring the 2007 countries based on an average Q-to-Q basis. The list as it was ordered before is chronological list of countries based on when they reached $1 trillion GDP according to the IMF source, excluding the US and Japan which reached the benchmark prior to the IMF dataset.

I also fear that your nationality may be distorting your views and introducing bias. Please keep in mind that the list is a chronological list based on historic values, it is not a list to boost up India or any other country on the list for whatever your reasons you may have. I may be wrong by your edits seem to suggest this. Interestingly, your so-called "alphabetical version" has India at 11, Russia at 12 and Mexico at 13. Are we using the same alphabet here? In any case, as I have reasoned above the alphabet has nothing to do with the ranking of this list. I should also point out that you were the one who first made the unilateral change and thus it is your responsibility to obtain consensus before making another contentious change. To avoid an edit war, please follow a policy of WP:BRD and do not make another change to the article until consensus is obtained. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I fear it is your nationality that might be clouding your judgement (see the Regional Power page for more information). Perhaps it is your editing history should be drawn into question most notably your previous blocks for sock puppetry and edit warring on other articles. Perhaps if you have looked at my previous contributions you would notice that I in general seek to remove factual inaccuracies in any article (be it India-related or otherwise). Since the data from the IMF does not state which country happened to obtain Trillion Dollar status first, I would suggest that it be defaulted to an alphabetical listing. Your inference is also not of much interest to Wikipedia. I realize that Mexico should precede Russia and that was an error on my part but that is ofcourse no reason to resort to aggressive posturing as you just did. As such I am adjusting the citation and should you have any issues, you should find a source that clearly states which economy obtained Trillion dollar status first. Vedant (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What does Regional power have to do with this? I was just pointing out how your edits on this article were seen, no need to get defensive and since you clearly erred by edit warring and not discussing. I am still unsure you fully understand my argument but in any case since I am rather flexible I've decided to retain the ordering but adjust the ranking to 11th for all three. Surely, you cannot advocate having them ranked 11, 12, 13 even though they all reached in the same year. Nirvana888 (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not advocating that at all. My only argument with the listing was that since more precise information regarding the countries was not available, it would be incorrect to state that one country obtained Trillion dollar status before another. I have no objection to them all being ranked equally. If you believe I do not act in good faith or that my contributions are biased please tell me how and I would be more than happy to explain myself. Vedant (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No consensus whether it is Nominal or PPP

There is absolutely no single source which states that it should be ranked according to Nominal, which seems to be how it's ranked right now. For example, the CIA states that South Korea joined the trillion dollar club in 2004[1] but that's when it is measured using PPP. Either way, when measured using Nominal, South Korea joined the trillion dollar club in 2007 according to the IMF.[2] Clearly, when using the rank order by the year it joined this club, there is no need to remove South Korea just because it dipped slightly below the mark in 2008 because of the massive currency fluctuations. I suggest keeping both lists (at nominal AND PPP) unless you can find a source which states that the trillion dollar club is explicitly for Nominal ONLY. Softjuice (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 nominal GDP by CIA Factbook

South Korea is still not in the $1 trillion dollar club. In fact, its nominal GDP for 2009 went DOWN further than in 2008. Rockies77 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Rockies77Rockies77 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Better to use real

I saw the last remark stating that even if a countrie's output decreases, the nominal value can go from a billion to a trillion dollar economy. It goes without saying that this would be avoided if real data was used. If nobody disagrees and if I have enough time, I will include all countries that have a real gdp of over a trillion bucks. Danielfc.mx (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 00:27 13 jan 2011 edmonton canada time

The "trillion dollar club" is an informal term and list created by Goldman Sachs and FORBES magazine. It is reported in terms of nominal GDP. It has always been the case. Although I think it should be reported in terms of GDP PPP, but in no way any listing should be replaced since it is not a formal listing but an informal one. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced and dead links

Most of the EU entries are either not sourced, or in the cases where a reference is specified, no reference actually exists. The same can be said about a few other entries (East Germany). Additionally, taking the composite countries of the EU and compiling them into a new entry is a no-no per WP:SYNTH. The sources needs to specifically reference the EU (or any other country) to merit inclusion.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, since the article (such as it is) is about "nations", and the EU is not now, nor has it ever been, a "nation". I have removed the EU from all tables, and removed those tables in which the EU was the only listing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Trillion dollar club

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Trillion dollar club's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "GDP":

• From United Kingdom: "United Kingdom". International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 1 October 2009.
• From List of Italian regions by GDP (PPP): EUROPA - Press Releases - Regional GDP per inhabitant in 2008 GDP per inhabitant ranged from 28% of the EU27 average in Severozapaden in Bulgaria to 343% in Inner London

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary categories

Do we really need a section for every trillion? 16-19 trillion don't seem useful. ReidMoffat (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

im sorry, i dont know why i even said that in the first place. have a good day :) Byvd (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)